Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1887-11-23
A COUNTRY LAWYER.

Some twenty-five or thirty years
ago, there lived in Iowa a young
man by the name of Samuel Ran
dolph, at that time engaged in teach
ing country school, and during
leisure hours reading Blackstone in
order to qualify himself for admis-
sion to the bar. Near the school
house lived two farmers, who will be
designated as A and B. A owned
large number of hogs, which he al
lowed to run at large to feed on the
mast. B owned cornfield, fenced
with a dilapidated brush fence. He
also owned savage dog. When
the corn began to ripen, AS hogs
made frequent raids into the field
and helped themselves to the corn.
B being greatly annoyed by them,
finally set his dog on the hogs and
worried them considerably, When
A discovered his lacerated hogs he
was full of wrath. The next day A
started, with and ak on his shoulder,
to 60 to his timber to chop wood,
which led him by BIS house, and see
ing BIS wife insides of BIS lot, about
thirty or forty feet from the fence,
milking cow, he stopped at the
gate and inquired for B. Being in
formed that B was not at home, he
threatened to smash B to the earth if
he ever dogged his hogs again, and to
demonstrate how he would do it he
brought his ak down on the fence
with 4 fearful blow. He then left.
When B returned his wife informed
him of AS threat, which made him
madder than a March hare, and off
he goes to the schoolhouse to consult
Sam Randolph whether he would
sue A with the law" Randolph,
after consulting his Blackstone and
the statutes, informed him that the
act constituted the offence of assault
with intent to infiict great bodily in
jury" and advised B to commence
n criminal prosecution against A.
Randolph drew up an information
and B took it to the nearest justice
and had a warrant issued for AS ar
rest. A being duly arrested, and a
day set for his trial, Randolph ap-
peared for the prosecution and a
man named Jones as attorney for
the defendant. The witnesses being
sworn, the facts as above stated were
duly proven. Randolph then pro-
ceeded with a lengthy argument,
not to convince the court of the de-
fendant's guilt, but to convince the
court and bystanders that he had
read Blackstone, and concluded his
argument with the following peoria
tion: MAY it please your honor,
the summum bonum of the whole
business is that the defendant is
guilty."
Then Jones, for the defense. ad-
dressed the court as follows: "Your
honor, it may be that under the old
law of summum bOnum-Which was
that if a man was charged with a
crime, he was guilty, whether he
had ever done anything wrong or
not-that my client is guilty; but
that law was an unjust law enacted
by despots and tyrants to oppress the
weak and the poor. That was the
law of this country down to the time
of the revolutionary war, when our
forefathers rebelled against it, and
after seven long years of bloody war,
finally repealed it with their swords,
and enacted in its stead the great
law of E Pluribus Unum, which is
that a man is never guilty of any
crime until he does something wrong.
Now, since the prosecutor was not
within mile of the fence when the
blow was struck, he could not have
been injured and as the blow did the
fence no harm, my client did no
wrong. Therefore, under the great
law Of E Pluribus Unum, which is
now the law of this country, he is
eSt5g eGt guilty. and should be disehars-
The justice then summed up the
case as follows: "Well, it appears
by the argument that under the old
law of summum bonus the defend
ant is guilty; but my father was a
revolutionary soldier, and I've heern
him tell all about the revolutionary
war, and so know that the old law
of summum bonus has been abolish
ed, and the great law of E Pluribus
Unum now waves all over this coun-
try. So I lets the defendant go."-
NeaOark Journal.